Albert Barnes Commentary Daniel 3:1

"Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits: he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon." — Daniel 3:1 (ASV)

Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold - The time when he did this is not mentioned, nor is it stated in whose honor, or for what design, this colossal image was erected. In the Greek and Arabic translations, this is said to have occurred in the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. This is not, however, in the original text, nor is it known on what authority it is asserted. Dean Prideaux (Connections, I. 222) supposes that it was at first some marginal comment on the Greek version that eventually crept into the text, and that there was probably some good authority for it. If this is the correct account of the time, the event here recorded occurred 587 BC, or, according to the chronology of Prideaux, about nineteen years after the transaction recorded in the previous chapter.

Hales makes the chronology somewhat different, though not essentially. According to him, Daniel was carried to Babylon 586 BC, and the image was set up 569 BC, making an interval from the time that he was carried to Babylon of seventeen years. If the dream (Daniel 2) was explained within three or four years after Daniel was taken to Babylon, the interval between that and this occurrence would be some thirteen or fourteen years.

Calmet makes the captivity of Daniel 602 years BC, the interpretation of the dream 598 BC, and the setting up of the image 556 BC—thus making an interval of more than forty years. It is impossible to determine the time with certainty. However, allowing the shortest-mentioned period as the interval between the interpretation of the dream (Daniel 2) and the erection of this statue, the time would be sufficient to account for the fact that the impression made by that event on the mind of Nebuchadnezzar, in favor of the claims of the true God (Daniel 2:46–47), seems to have been entirely effaced. The two chapters, in order that the right impression may be received on this point, should be read with the recollection that such an interval had elapsed.

At the time when the event here recorded is supposed by Prideaux to have occurred, Nebuchadnezzar had just returned from finishing the Jewish war.

From the spoils which he had taken in that expedition in Syria and Palestine, he had the means in abundance of erecting such a colossal statue. At the close of these conquests, nothing would be more natural than that he should wish to erect in his capital some splendid work of art that would signalize his reign, record the memory of his conquests, and add to the magnificence of the city.

The word which is here rendered “image” (Chaldee צלם tselēm - Greek εἰκόνα eikona), in the usual form in the Hebrew, means a shade, shadow; then what shadows forth anything; then an image of anything, and then an “idol,” as representing the deity worshipped. It is not necessary to suppose that it was of solid gold, for the amount required for such a structure would have been immense, and probably beyond the means even of Nebuchadnezzar. The presumption is that it was merely covered over with plates of gold, for this was the usual manner in which statues erected in honor of the gods were made. .

It is not known in honor of whom this statue was erected. Grotius supposed that it was erected to the memory of Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, and observes that it was customary to erect statues in this manner in honor of parents. Prideaux, Hales, the editor of the “Pictorial Bible,” and most others, suppose that it was in honor of Bel, the principal deity worshipped in Babylon. (See the notes at Isaiah 46:1). Some have supposed that it was in honor of Nebuchadnezzar himself, and that he purposed by it to be worshipped as a god. But this opinion has little probability in its favor.

The opinion that it was in honor of Bel, the principal deity of the place, is in every way the most probable. This derives some confirmation from the well-known fact that a magnificent image of this kind was, at some period of his reign, erected by Nebuchadnezzar in honor of this god, in a style to correspond with the magnificence of the city.

The account of this given by Herodotus is the following: “The temple of Jupiter Belus, whose huge gates of brass may still be seen, is a square building, each side of which is two furlongs. In the middle rises a tower, of the solid depth and height of one furlong; upon which, resting as upon a base, seven other smaller towers are built in regular succession. The ascent is on the outside, which, winding from the ground, is continued to the highest tower; and in the middle of the whole structure there is a convenient resting place. In the last tower is a large chapel, in which is placed a couch, magnificently adorned, and near it a table of solid gold; but there is no statue in the place. In this temple there is also a small chapel, lower in the building, which contains a figure of Jupiter, in a sitting posture, with a large table before him; these, with the base of the table, and the seat of the throne, are all of the purest gold, and are estimated by the Chaldeans to be worth eight hundred talents.

“On the outside of this chapel there are two altars: one is gold, the other is of immense size and appropriated to the sacrifice of full-grown animals; only those which have not yet left their dams may be offered on the golden altar. On the larger altar, at the anniversary festival in honor of their god, the Chaldeans regularly consume incense to the amount of a thousand talents.

“There was formerly in this temple a statue of solid gold twelve cubits high; this, however, I mention from the information of the Chaldeans, and not from my own knowledge.” - Clio, 183.

Diodorus Siculus, a much later writer, speaks to this effect: “Of the tower of Jupiter Belus, the historians who have spoken have given different descriptions; and this temple being now entirely destroyed, we cannot speak accurately respecting it. It was excessively high, constructed throughout with great care, and built of brick and bitumen.

“Semiramis placed on the top of it three statues of massive gold, of Jupiter, Juno, and Rhea. Jupiter was erect, in the attitude of a man walking; he was forty feet in height and weighed a thousand Babylonian talents. Rhea, who sat in a chariot of gold, was of the same weight. Juno, who stood upright, weighed eight hundred talents.” - B. ii.

The temple of Bel or Belus in Babylon stood until the time of Xerxes. On his return from the Grecian expedition, he demolished the whole of it and reduced it to rubble, having first plundered it of its immense riches.

Among the spoils he took from the temple are mentioned several images and statues of massive gold, including the one Diodorus Siculus mentioned as being forty feet high. (See Strabo, Book 16, p. 738; Herodotus, Book 1; Arrian, De Expeditione Alexandri, Book 7, quoted by Prideaux I. 240).

It is not very probable that the image Xerxes removed was the same one Nebuchadnezzar erected in the plain of Dura (compare the Introduction to this chapter, Section I. VII. (a)). However, the fact that such a colossal statue was found in Babylon may be adduced as one incidental corroboration of the probability of the statement here.

It is not impossible that Nebuchadnezzar was led to the construction of this image by what he had seen in Egypt, as the editor of Calmet’s “Dictionary” has remarked (Taylor, vol. iii. p. 194).

He had conquered and ravaged Egypt only a few years before this and had doubtless been struck by the wonders of art he had seen there.

Colossal statues in honor of the gods abounded, and nothing would be more natural than for Nebuchadnezzar to wish to make his capital rival everything he had seen in Thebes. Nor is it improbable that, while he sought to make his image more magnificent and costly than even those in Egypt, the sculptural style would be about the same, and the “figure” of the statue might be borrowed from what had been seen in Egypt. (See the statues of the two celebrated colossal figures of Amunoph III standing in the plains of Goorneh, Thebes, one of which is known as the Vocal Memnon).

These colossi, exclusive of the pedestals (partially buried), are forty-seven feet high and eighteen feet three inches wide across the shoulders. According to Wilkinson, they are each of one single block and contain about 11,500 cubic feet of stone. They are made of a stone not found within several days’ journey from where they are erected. Calmet refers to these statues, quoting from Norden.

Whose height was threescore cubits - Prideaux and others have been greatly perplexed at the “proportions” of the image here represented. Prideaux says on the subject (Connections, I. 240, 241), “Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image is indeed said in Scripture to have been sixty cubits, that is, ninety feet high; but this must be understood of the image and pedestal both together. For since that image is said to be only six cubits broad or thick, it is impossible that the image could have been sixty cubits high, for that makes its height ten times its breadth or thickness, which exceeds all the proportions of a man, as no man’s height is more than six times his thickness, measuring the slenderest man living at the waist.

“But where the breadth of this image was measured is not said; perhaps it was from shoulder to shoulder. Then the proportion of six cubits breadth will bring down the height exactly to the measure Diodorus has mentioned; for as the usual height of a man is four and a half times his breadth between the shoulders, if the image were six cubits broad between the shoulders, it must, according to this proportion, have been twenty-seven cubits high, which is forty and a half feet.”

The statue itself, therefore, according to Prideaux, was forty feet high, and the pedestal fifty feet. But this, says Taylor, the editor of Calmet, is a disproportion of parts that, if not absolutely impossible, is utterly contradictory to every principle of art, even of the most basic sort.

To meet the difficulty, Taylor himself supposes that the height referred to in the description was “proportional” rather than “actual” height. That is, if it had stood upright, it would have been sixty cubits, though its actual elevation in a sitting posture may have been little more than thirty cubits, or fifty feet.

He supposes the breadth was the depth or thickness measured from the breast to the back, rather than the breadth measured from shoulder to shoulder. (His argument and illustration may be seen in Calmet, vol. iii. Frag. 156).

It is not absolutely certain, however, that the image was in a sitting posture, and the “natural” construction of the passage is that the statue was actually sixty cubits in height.

No one can doubt that an image of that height could be erected. When we remember the one at Rhodes, which was 105 Grecian feet in height (see the article “Colossus” in Anthon’s “Classical Dictionary”), and Nebuchadnezzar’s desire to adorn his capital in the most magnificent manner, it is not improbable that an image of this height was erected.

What the height of the pedestal was, if it stood on any (as it probably did), is impossible now to tell.

The length of the “cubit” was not the same in every place. The Hebrew cubit, according to Bishop Cumberland and M. Pelletier, was twenty-one inches, but others fix it at eighteen. - Calmet.

The Talmudists say that the Hebrew cubit was larger by one quarter than the Roman. Herodotus says that the cubit in Babylon was three fingers longer than the usual one (Clio, 178). Still, there is no absolute certainty on that subject. The usual and probable measurement of the cubit would make the image in Babylon about ninety feet high.

And the breadth thereof six cubits - About nine feet. This would, of course, make the height ten times the breadth, which Prideaux says is entirely contrary to the usual proportions of a man. It is not known on what “part” of the image this measurement was made, or whether it was the thickness from the breast to the back, or the width from shoulder to shoulder. If the “thickness” of the image is referred to here by the word “breadth,” the proportion would be well preserved.

“The thickness of a well-proportioned man,” says Scheuchzer (Knupfer Bibel, in loc.), “measured from the breast to the back is one-tenth of his height.” This was understood to be the proportion by Augustine (De Civitate Dei, Book 15, Chapter 26).

The word rendered here as “breadth” (Chaldee פתי pethay) occurs nowhere else in the Chaldee of the Scriptures, except in Ezra 6:3: Let the house be builded, the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits.

Perhaps this refers to the “depth” of the temple from front to rear, as Taylor has remarked, rather than to the breadth from one side to another. If it does, it would correspond with the measurement of Solomon’s temple, and it is not probable that Cyrus would vary from that plan in his instructions to build a new temple.

If that is the true construction, then the meaning here may be, as remarked above, that the image was of that “thickness,” and the breadth from shoulder to shoulder may not be referred to.

He set it up in the plain of Dura - It would seem from this that it was set up in an open plain, and not in a temple; perhaps not near a temple. It was not unusual to erect images in this manner, as the colossal figure at Rhodes shows. Where this plain was, it is of course impossible now to determine.

The Greek translation of the word is Δεειρᾷ Deeira. Jerome says that Theodotion’s translation is “Deira;” Symmachus’s, “Doraum;” and the Septuagint’s, περίβολον peribolon—which he says may be rendered vivarium vel conclusum locum.

“Interpreters commonly,” says Gesenius, “compare Dura, a city mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus (25.6), situated on the Tigris; and another of like name in Polybius (5.48), on the Euphrates, near the mouth of the Chaboras.”

It is not necessary to suppose that this was in the “city” of Babylon. Indeed, it is probable that it was not, as the “province of Babylon” doubtless embraced more than the city. An extensive plain seems to have been selected, perhaps near the city, as a place where the monument would be more conspicuous and where larger numbers could convene for the homage that was to be shown to it.

In the province of Babylon - One of the provinces, or departments, embracing the capital, into which the empire was divided (Daniel 2:48).